People with Alzheimer's disease develop problems in recognizing familiar faces. It has been thought that this is just part of their general impairment, but a new study indicates that a specific, face-related impairment develops early in the disease. This impairment has to do with the recognition of a face as a whole.
Our life-experiences contain a wealth of new and old information. The relative proportions of these change, of course, as we age. But how do we know whether we should be encoding new information or retrieving old information? It’s easy if the information is readily accessible, but what if it’s not? Bear in mind that (especially as we get older) most information / experiences we meet share some similarity to information we already have.
A couple of years ago I briefly reported on a finding that students who had lived abroad demonstrated greater creativity, if they first recalled a multicultural learning experience from their life abroad. A new study examines this connection, in particular investigating the as-yet-unanswered question of whether students who studied abroad were already more creative than those who didn’t.
In the study, 64 older adults (60-74; average 70) and 64 college students were compared on a word recognition task. Both groups first took a vocabulary test, on which they performed similarly. They were then presented with 12 lists of 15 semantically related words. For example, one list could have words associated with "sleep," such as "bed," "rest," "awake," "tired" and "night" — but not the word “sleep”. They were not told they would be tested on their memory of these, rather they were asked to rate each word for pleasantness.
Following a 1994 study that found that errorless learning was better than trial-and-error learning for amnesic patients and older adults, errorless learning has been widely adopted in the rehabilitation industry. Errorless learning involves being told the answer without repeatedly trying to answer the question and perhaps making mistakes.
In the study, 18 children (aged 7-8), 20 adolescents (13-14), and 20 young adults (20-29) were shown pictures and asked to decide whether it was a new picture or one they had seen earlier. Some of the pictures were of known objects and others were fanciful figures (this was in order to measure the effects of novelty in general). After a 10-minute break, they resumed the task — with the twist that any pictures that had appeared in the first session should be judged “new” if that was the first appearance in the second session.
Memory begins with perception. We can’t remember what we don’t perceive, and our memory of things is influenced by how we perceive them.
Our ability to process visual scenes has been the subject of considerable research. How do we process so many objects? Some animals do it by severely limiting what they perceive, but humans can perceive a vast array of features. We need some other way of filtering the information. Moreover, it’s greatly to our advantage that we can process the environment extremely quickly. So that’s two questions: how do we process so much, and so fast?
Research has shown that people are generally poor at predicting how likely they are to remember something. A recent study tested the theory that the reason we’re so often inaccurate is that we make predictions about memory based on how we feel while we're encountering the information to be learned, and that can lead us astray.
Modigliani, V., Loverock, D.S. & Kirson, S.R. (1998). Encoding features of complex and unfamiliar objects. American Journal Of Psychology, 111, 215-239.
There is a pervasive myth that every detail of every experience we've ever had is recorded in memory. It is interesting to note therefore, that even very familiar objects, such as coins, are rarely remembered in accurate detail1.
We see coins every day, but we don't see them. What we remember about coins are global attributes, such as size and color, not the little details, such as which way the head is pointing, what words are written on it, etc. Such details are apparently noted only if the person's attention is specifically drawn to them.
There are several interesting conclusions that can be drawn from studies that have looked at the normal encoding of familiar objects:
In the present study, four experiments investigated people's memories for drawings of oak leaves. Two different types of oak leaves were used - "red oak" and "white oak". Subjects were shown two drawings for either 5 or 60 seconds. The differences between the two oak leaves varied, either:
According to the principle of top-down encoding, the time needed to detect a difference between stimuli that differ in only one critical feature will increase as the level of that feature decreases (from a global to a major specific to a lower-grade specific feature).
The results of this study supported the view that top-down encoding occurs, and indicate that, unless attention is explicitly directed to specific features, the likelihood of encoding such features becomes less the lower its structural level. One of the experiments tested whether the size of the feature made a difference, and it was decided that it didn't.
1. Jones, G.V. 1990. Misremembering a familiar object: When left is not right. Memory & Cognition, 18, 174-182.
Jones, G.V. & Martin, M. 1992. Misremembering a familiar object: Mnemonic illusion, not drawing bias. Memory & Cognition, 20, 211-213.
Nickerson, R.S. & Adams, M.J. 1979. Long-term memory of a common object. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 287-307.